Monday, July 2, 2012

Evolutionist: Plants Are “Driving Me Nuts!”

The abrupt appearance of many plant species was, for Charles Darwin, extraordinary. But the fossil record is not the only problem with plants. Plants also don’t fit into the evolutionary tree very well. Their DNA comparisons are inconsistent with their visible features, as discussed in the Nova documentary, First Flower:

NARRATOR: Now with the assurance of DNA insight, the family tree of living flowering plants has largely been written. The old family tree was now in for a major pruning. Roses were found to be closely related to squash, strawberries to marijuana, this meat-eating pitcher plant to China's famous rhododendrons. For centuries water lilies were thought to be nearly twins with the lotus—no longer.

MARK CHASE: This, believe it or not, is the closest living relative of the lotus. This is the London plane tree or sycamore. As you can see, this is not a little water plant, this is a big tree.

ANDREW DARRAGH (Horticulturist, Kew Gardens): …driving me nuts!

NARRATOR: Andy Darragh is in charge of tending to a garden at Kew that is organized by the old family tree of plants, it's called the Order Beds. He's got the somewhat overwhelming job of trying to bring order to the new order.

ANDY DARRAGH: We're in this weird limbo period. I'm trying to not only do a job of gardening, mowing, edging, and weeding constantly, but I've also got to keep myself up to date. And I've also got to try and understand plant science and botany. I wish it was simpler, but it's not.

NARRATOR: Perhaps the biggest surprise from the DNA evidence is that when all the number crunching was done, one plant showed up at the very bottom of the family tree of living flowering plants, Amborella, the oldest branch of the family tree—a plant so rare that it is only found in the remote Pacific island nation of New Caledonia. So is Amborella the world's oldest flowering plant? Not the fossil Archaefructus that Sun Ge discovered? Not necessarily.

PETER CRANE: The molecular evidence allows us to really understand living plants in enormous detail. What it doesn't allow us to do is to account for all the diversity that's extinct.

It’s another example of viewing the data according to the theory rather than viewing the theory according to the data.

148 comments:

Another way is that the idea of DNA being a trail for biological heritage is not only unproven but unlikely.God simply usses and used like DNA for like reasons in unrelated biology.Just like amongst creatures.Why not?These plants would have crazy dna comparisons if its simply that like parts had and have like dna scores.Not that these plants are related in any way but simply have some like details from a like model or computer model from a creator!The sameness in nature suggests or demands a conclusion there is common biological physics going on as there is in physics generally.Why not?Great laws in biology would have results of DNA likeness where there is likeness for need.No reason to insist on a trail this begetting that because of DNA sameness.its just a presumption.

evolutionism needs to correct itself on its assumptions just to survive.creationisms need to see biology as the result of a ordered universe and allow more diversity results from original plans. Allow biology greater power even if mechanism is not understood.What would we do if we were creating things?

Flowering Plant Big Bang:“Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species,“To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing - especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.” Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

"A major problem for Neo-Darwinism is the complete lack of evidence for plant evolution in the fossil record. As a whole, the fossil evidence of prehistoric plants is actually very good, yet no convincing transitional forms have been discovered in the abundant plant fossil record" Jerry Bergman - The Evolution Of Plants - "A Major Problem For Darwinists" - Technical Journal - 2002 online edition

Thank God for Flowers - Hugh Ross - August 2010Excerpt: Paleontologist Kevin Boyce and climate modeler Jung-Eun Lee,,, recently discovered that flowering plants contribute much more than romance and beauty to humanity’s wellbeing. They uncovered evidence suggesting that without flowering plants, human civilization would not even be possible. Boyce and Lee found that a world without angiosperms (flowering plants) would not only be drab and uninspiring but would also be much drier and hotter and lacking in species diversity. The researchers noted that angiosperms transpire water to the atmosphere about four times more efficiently than other species of plants.http://www.reasons.org/thank-god-flowers

As to a certain pollinator of flowering plants, the honey bee, it seems that the honey bee appeared suddenly in the fossil record and 'forgot to evolve' as well:

Here is a 50 million year old honeybee that has been preserved in amber:http://api.fmanager.net/files/fossils/thumbs/AI0650_t.jpg

Finding: Bees Solve The Traveling Salesman Problem - October 2010 Excerpt: It is a classic problem in the field of computer science: In what order should a salesman visit his prospects? The traveling salesman problem may appear simple but it has engaged some of the greatest mathematical minds and today engages some of the fastest computers. This makes new findings, that bees routinely solve the problem before pollinating flowers, all the more remarkable. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/finding-bees-solve-the-traveling-salesman-problem/

This is an excellent example of irreducible complexity in plants as well:

Carnivorous Plants - Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Excerpt: Moreover, it appears to be hard even to imagine clear-cut selective advantages for all the thousands of postulated intermediate steps in a gradual scenario, not to mention the formulation and examination of scientific (i.e. testable) hypotheses for the origin of the complex carnivorous plant structures examined above. http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/carn.pdf

It is interesting to note that plants are far more sophisticated than many people had at first realized:

Plants may be able to 'hear' others - June 2012 Excerpt: Plants are known to have many of the senses we do: they can sense changes in light level, "smell" chemicals in the air and "taste" them in the soil (New Scientist, 26 September 1998, p 24). They even have a sense of touch that detects buffeting from strong winds.,,, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428683.300-plants-may-be-able-to-hear-others.html

As well, Plants are simply 'miraculous' to behold in timelapse photography:

This is an excellent example of irreducible complexity in plants as well:

Carnivorous Plants - Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research,Excerpt: Moreover, it appears to be hard even to imagine clear-cut selective advantages for all the thousands of postulated intermediate steps in a gradual scenario, not to mention the formulation and examination of scientific (i.e. testable) hypotheses for the origin of the complex carnivorous plant structures examined above.http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/carn.pdf

It is interesting to note that plants are far more sophisticated than many people had at first realized:

Plants may be able to 'hear' others - June 2012Excerpt: Plants are known to have many of the senses we do: they can sense changes in light level, "smell" chemicals in the air and "taste" them in the soil (New Scientist, 26 September 1998, p 24). They even have a sense of touch that detects buffeting from strong winds.,,,http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428683.300-plants-may-be-able-to-hear-others.html

As well, Plants are simply 'miraculous' to behold in timelapse photography:

Dr. Hunter, this article on photosynthesis, which just came out yesterday, may interest you:

Scientists unlock some key secrets of photosynthesis - July 2, 2012Excerpt: "The photosynthetic system of plants is nature's most elaborate nanoscale biological machine," said Lakshmi. "It converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current man-made solar technologies.,, "Photosystem II is the engine of life," Lakshmi said. "It performs one of the most energetically demanding reactions known to mankind, splitting water, with remarkable ease and efficiency.",,, "Water is a very stable molecule and it takes four photons of light to split water," she said. "This is a challenge for chemists and physicists around the world (to imitate) as the four-photon reaction has very stringent requirements."http://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-key-secrets-photosynthesis.html

Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) -"In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Lakatoshttp://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx

Cornelius, since you obviously accept that this DNA data shows a viable phylogenetic tree and establishes the ancestral relationships of the flora, why do you reject the DNA data that shows the ancestral relationships of the fauna? It's done with the same tests using the same methods.

Of course no IDCer will dare touch this data with a 10' pole. In fact, when I asked them for an explanation of the flora fossil record they all ran screaming from the room.

Says the man who thinks it not insane to fight against God almighty. Indeed a man who insists he has no mind at all but merely a brain. i.e. you have literally 'lost your mind' in your atheistic beliefs Thorton! :)

'Of all the things I've lost in my life, I think I miss my mind the most' - Randy Mitchell

"Amborella is placed ALONE in the family Amborellaceae. The APG II system recognized this family, but left it unplaced at order rank due to uncertainty about its relationship to the family Nymphaeaceae. In the most recent APG system, APG III, the Amborellaceae is placed in the monotypic order Amborellales at the base of the angiosperm phylogeny.

Older systems

The Cronquist system, of 1981, assigned the family

to the order Laurales in subclass Magnoliidae, in class Magnoliopsida [=dicotyledons] of division Magnoliophyta [=angiosperms].

The Thorne system (1992) placed itin the order Magnoliales, which was assigned to superorder Magnolianae, in subclass Magnoliideae [=dicotyledons], in class Magnoliopsida [=angiosperms].

The Dahlgren system placed itin the order Laurales, which was assigned to superorder Magnolianae in subclass Magnoliideae [=dicotyledons], in class Magnoliopsida [=angiosperms]. " - wikipedia Amborella.

So much for the objective nested hierarchy.

It never occurs to the evolutionist that placing plants into an objective classification that is consistent across the board is not possible because all this stuff has no relationship via common descent... It's shouting 'forced fit', 'artifical fit', and 'contrived'! Normally, when you're working on a project and things are just not coming together well, you have to stop putting bandages on and question your basic and foundational assumptions.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to the evolutionary mess and that's design. Significant DNA manipulation has been performed via intelligent design in the lab and these procedures have been documented and even patented. Evolutionists, however, demand more than just scientifically possible means of intelligent design. All the while they feel free to call evolution a fact and then willy nilly speculate how natural selection, unknown mutations, unknown hgt, convergence, and cascades of convergence may have occured. Apparently, for an evolution to say that cascades of convergence may have been responsible for such and such is more scientific than saying DNA manipulation by an intelligent being may have been responsible for it. They believe that suggesting an intelligent being is off limits, a science stopper, and unscientific. Yet serendipitous stories of cascades of convergence is somehow explanatory. How's that again?

We can probably never know in a detailed manner how something long ago occured, but comparing the demonstrated power of intelligent DNA manipulation with the trivial and misfit results of unguided evolution that we have observed should leave no doubt as to how plants or animals of immense complexity came to be preserved abruptly in the fossil record. The potential of discovery and impact upon biology via intelligent design techniques will be much greater than chasing evolutionary tales. Scientists that intelligently design procedures and call it "guided evolution" are really just utilizing a intelligent design and artifical (intentional) selection. Why? because unguided evolution is ineffectual.

Tedford, who is your audience for these ridiculous over-the-top blusterfests? It certainly isn't mainstream science, because your demonstrated complete ignorance on all facets of evolutionary theory precludes you ever being taken seriously. Apparently you're just trying to convince yourself that you're GAWD's special creation. Good luck with that one.

So ID is not even a theory in your book??? i.e. Ignore the elephant and maybe it will go away???

How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"? - Casey Luskin - October 2011Excerpt: ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to epigenetics and paleontology. ID more than exceeds the NAS's definitions of "theory."http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/how_do_we_know_intelligent_des051841.html

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html

It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation:

Criticism is not a Popperian quick kill, by refutation. Important criticism is always constructive: there is no refutation without a better theory.

Like I've been saying.

Lakatos was addressing scientific theories, not religious theories mandated by an underlying dogma. Here is the expanded quote which makes this clear:

As opposed to Popper the methodology of scientific research programmes does not offer instant rationality. One must treat budding programmes leniently: programmes may take decades before they get off the ground and become empirically progressive. Criticism is not a Popperian quick kill, by refutation. Important criticism is always constructive: there is no refutation without a better theory. Kuhn is wrong in thinking that scientific revolutions are sudden, irrational changes in vision. [The history of science refutes both Popper and Kuhn: ] On close inspection both Popperian crucial experiments and Kuhnian revolutions turn out to be myths: what normally happens is that progressive research programmes replace degenerating ones.

ID has no research program at all, let alone a "progressive" one. ID advocates have so little to say that even their own vanity journals like PCID and Bio-Systems quickly run out of steam and die. How many papers has Bio-Systems published written by someone *not* on the editorial or advisory board?

I give Bio-Systems another year, maybe two at max before it expires completely.

I read an article the other day that the military is using the design of the Gecko to equip solders with the ability to scale glass walls with backpacks and no ropes. Intelligent engineers are still working on it to get it as efficient as the Gecko technology.

Here's another article from today at Discovery...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/the_geckos_toes_1061621.html

"The most likely hypothesis suggests that adhesive toepads evolved 11 times and were lost nine times. The overall external morphology of the toepad is strikingly similar in many lineages in which it is independently derived, but lineage-specific differences are evident, particularly regarding internal anatomy, with unique morphological patterns defining each independent derivation.

Rather than think that maybe it was intentionally designed, we must believe that the "most likely" thing that happened is that it evolved independently 11 times.

The article concludes: "However unlikely it seems to evolve this design even once, geckos, alone in nature, did it 11 times. It's like riding a bike, evidently. Once you've mastered adhesion via van der Waals force, you never really forget."

"The most likely hypothesis suggests that adhesive toepads evolved 11 times and were lost nine times. The overall external morphology of the toepad is strikingly similar in many lineages in which it is independently derived, but lineage-specific differences are evident, particularly regarding internal anatomy, with unique morphological patterns defining each independent derivation.

Rather than think that maybe it was intentionally designed, we must believe that the "most likely" thing that happened is that it evolved independently 11 times.

Maybe Baghdad Bob would like to explain why his Intelligent Designer used 11 different designs, a different one in each lineage, to achieve the same function.

Elizabeth, because there are lineage-specific differences and evolution is an assumed fact. Put together, the most likely hypothesis is it evolved 11 times. For evolutionists homology is evidence for evolution, independently derived characters are evidence for evolution, and anything else is evidence. Evolutionists have no metric or standard to deny the ability of evolution to do anything.

"Maybe Baghdad Bob would like to explain why his Intelligent Designer used 11 different designs, a different one in each lineage, to achieve the same function."

Because God is creative and likes variety! OK now for you, can you please tell me how evolution evolved even a single functional protein/gene by purely material processes???

Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html

Psalm 145:18The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.

Sir Isaac Newton surely had no reservation about calling on God in truth:

I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time

In fact a 'personal relationship' with the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth, as strange as that may sound to some people, is the overwhelming claim of the Bible:

THE EIGHT-FOLD WAY TO KNOWING GOD A Study From The Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter One by Lambert Dolphin Knowing God Personally and Intimately Excerpt: Can a person embark on a journey that leads to knowing God? The overwhelming claim of the Bible is yes! Not only can anyone of us know the Lord and the Creator of everything that exists, we are invited—even urged—each one of us, to know him intimately, personally and deeply. http://ldolphin.org/Eightfld.html

HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” http://www.christian-marriage-today.com/support-files/hearinggodspeakbiblestudy.pdf

What we need is a living encounter with God! - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnlTIODfbhY

Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum MechanicsExcerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:

Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

Neal: Elizabeth, because there are lineage-specific differences and evolution is an assumed fact. Put together, the most likely hypothesis is it evolved 11 times. For evolutionists homology is evidence for evolution, independently derived characters are evidence for evolution, and anything else is evidence. Evolutionists have no metric or standard to deny the ability of evolution to do anything.

This is simply not true, Neal, as would be immediately obvious to you if you read the actual paper, which is open access, particular the methods section:

We calculated BiSSE model parameters from the ultrametric ML tree using maximum likelihood in the software Diversitree [63]. We also tested several hypotheses regarding the evolution of the digital adhesive mechanism using a range of constrained BiSSE models. We calculated parameters for the unconstrained, six-parameter model and then sequentially constrained each of the model parameters, alone and in combination, to yield a single rate for each parameter (e.g., mu0 = mu1, lambda0 = lambda1, q01 = q10) to determine if constrained models provided a better fit to the data than did the unconstrained model. We also explored whether models that restricted transitions between character states provided a realistic evaluation of our data. We did this by constraining q01 = 0, where a functional digital adhesive mechanism evolved just once; and q10 = 0, where once gained, a functional digital adhesive mechanism is never lost. We used AIC scores to determine which model provided the best fit to our data. Bayesian posterior distributions of BiSSE model parameters were also estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses with the terminally unresolved generic-level ML tree in Diversitree [63]. Priors for each parameter used an exponential distribution, and estimated ML model parameters were used as a starting point. We combined results from two separate MCMC chains run for 10,000 generations each, with the first 10% of each run discarded as burn-in.

It really is time that this canard about evolution not being testable and not making successful predictions was put to rest.

Evolution is CARTE BLANCHE.

No, it is not. What is a CARTE BLANCHE is a supernatural ID, because a supernatural ID can explain anything, and therefore nothing.

Evolutionary theories cannot explain anything, and models have to be carefully fitted to data, not the other way round. As in that paper.

The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

As well, this hypothetical infinite multiverse that atheists appeal to to explain away the fine-tuning of this universe obviously begs the question, "if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for God to exist?" The atheists/materialists in their rush to 'explain away God, have in fact conceded the necessary premise to the ontological argument making it a airtight logical argument!

Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641

God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists.

Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4

I like the concluding comment about the ontological argument from the following Dr. Plantinga video:

Thorton ignoring for a minute that materialistic atheism cannot even ground 'science', let's look at the predictions that the materialistic and Theistic philosophy have made against the evidence we have found and see which one is 'all science so far'

Steps of the Scientific Methodhttp://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang.

5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -

6. Materialism predicted that consciousness is a 'emergent property' of material reality and thus has no particular special position within material reality. Theism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a 'special' position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even central, position within material reality. -

7. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9) -

8. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. -

9. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. -

10. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". -

11. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) -

12. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) -

13. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth -

14. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. -

15. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. -

16. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. -

references for each of the 16 predictions:https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ubha8aFKlJiljnuCa98QqLihFWFwZ_nnUNhEC6m6Cys

Thorton, it is interesting that when you bring up a point and it is refuted by empirical evidence you automatically reject the evidence presented to you by me as 'projectile vomiting', yet when you make unsubstantiated claims with no empirical support this is science in your book. Why should this be so? Why are you so biased as to ignore the evidence itself? Do you think hurling insults will make this evidence go away? Certainly not! And Thorton whether you like it or not, the evidence will continue to grow and grow in favor of ID regardless of whether you like the implications or not. There truly is nothing you can do to stop the trend in evidence.,,, I would like to think there is a glimmer of hope that you would be reasonable to the evidence and accept at least some form of ID, but I'm afraid, after seeing your mannerism for a while now, that you are doomed to the fate prescribed by Planck:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” - Max Planck

Thorton ignoring for a minute that materialistic atheism cannot even ground 'science', let's look at the predictions that the materialistic and Theistic philosophy have made against the evidence we have found and see which one is 'all science so far'

Steps of the Scientific Methodhttp://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

1. Materialism predicted ... etc

[...]

references for each of the 16 predictions:...

I had a quick look though that list of references for the 16 predictions. I couldn't find any that supported the claim that materialism made any of these predictions.

There were plenty of references to evidence for the Big Bang, the fossil record and so on, evidence which, not to put too fine a point on it, was discovered by good, solid, naturalistic, materialistic science.

And what's all this about "Theistic philosophy"? All your predictions are from the Christian Bible. If all this is about pushing Christianity why not be honest about it?

As for those Biblical predictions, yes, it says God created the heavens and the earth and all life within - in six days and a little over 6000 years ago. Big Bang cosmology has the universe coming into existence 13.75 billion years ago, our solar system around 4.3 billion years ago and life on Earth a little over 3 billion years ago. So, yes, both describe a beginning - but all the rest isn't even close.

And while we're on creation myths, why limit the choice to Christianity when there's a wealth of alternatives? For anyone who's interested, Wikipedia has a very handy list. For example, under "1.4: Ex nihilo (out of nothing)" we have:

Well despite whatever Ian thinks science is, science cannot be grounded in materialism, thus how can science ever be 'materialistic'?

Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

Ian complains:

"If all this is about pushing Christianity why not be honest about it?"

Despite your allusion to 'pushing', the fact is that 'science', which can't be grounded in materialism, and must be grounded in some form of theism, moreover 'science' gives strong indication that Christ actually rose from the dead:

Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanicshttps://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

It is also very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - videohttp://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Most-Important-Verse-in-the-Bible.html

Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf

Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found by science to be as follows:

John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.

(of note: 'Word' in Greek is 'Logos', and is the root word from which we get our word 'Logic')

It is simply ludicrous for Ian to try to hold that materialism did not hold the predictions I listed. For instance

1. Carl Sagan said, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

2. Eddington found a beginning of the universe 'repugnant' and tried to find a 'loophole'. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would 'draw together' under its own gravity, in his self admitted 'greatest blunder', added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe had a beginning. And Einstein was corrected, by of all people, a Belgian Priest:

Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre - The "Father" Of The Big Bang Theory - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662

of note: This was not the last time Einstein's base materialistic philosophy had severely misled him. He was also severely misled in the Bohr–Einstein debates in which he was repeatedly proven wrong in challenging the 'spooky action at a distance' postulations of the emerging field of quantum mechanics. This following video highlights the Bohr/Einstein debate and the decades long struggle to 'scientifically' resolve the disagreement between them:

The Failure Of Local Realism or Reductive Materialism - Alain Aspect - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

Ian, perhaps instead of being worried about what your atheistic friend might think of you, why don't you get honest with yourself and ask yourself, "Self, why am I in the insane position of making such shallow arguments against a infinitely powerful God who created the universe and all life in it and who holds the fate of my soul in His hands?",,,

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

Ian, perhaps such ignorance was excusable in Jefferson's day, though I doubt it because Jefferson was using immaterial logic in his argument, immaterial logic which can't be reduced a material basis, to argue that immaterial things are 'nothings' that do not exist. Perhaps he would be well advised to argue without using the 'nothing of logic' to try to prove his point! :) Regardless of Jefferson's gross lapse in reasoning, today there is simply no excuse for such ignorance since material is shown to reduce to 'immaterial information' in quantum teleportation experiments. Reduced by of all things a 'operation of logic' on a entangled particle:

Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research PageExcerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,"http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing

Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp

Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts

Further notes:

Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

please show me ANY system of logic that is NOT immaterial in its basis.

Moreover please show me how math can be held as consistently true without God being held as true as a starting presumption:

Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#

Moreover, mathematicians and physicists seem to have forgotten the lesson of incompleteness born out by Godel for they are trying to unify the mathematical equations of Quantum Mechanics with the equations of General Relativity without considering that God is necessary to bring 'completeness' to logic:

The God of the Mathematicians - GoldmanExcerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century)http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated videohttp://vimeo.com/34084462

Thus, when one allows God into math, as Godel indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being 'incomplete', then there actually exists a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a 'Theory of Everything'!

3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA

Thus our best mathematical descriptions of reality point to the fact that our temporal dimension issues forth, and is sustained, from a higher 'immaterial' dimension.

Few people would try to argue that a rock is not real. Someone who would argue that it is not real could bang his head on the rock until he was satisfied the rock is real.A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; mass, energy, universal constants. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all the mass of the universe is ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire mass of the rock can “hypothetically” be reduced to energy.

E=mc2 - Einstein and the World’s Most Famous Equation (The history behind each piece of the equation) - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDr9j1cJxPQ

This energy/mass is “woven” by various, unchanging, transcendent, universal constants into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal constants into the mass of the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs.

While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the material rock, energy in and of itself is a “non-solid” entity. In fact, it is the unchanging, immaterial, universal constants/forces, which have not varied one iota from the universes creation, that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, that can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock. Unchanging immaterial universal constants are in fact the 'hardest' part of the rock!

Because of a little principle you may have heard of called the burden of proof. This says that, if you make a claim and want to persuade others of its merits, you have to provide the evidence and arguments to back it up. It's not for the rest of us to prove it wrong. You get charged with a crime? It's up to the prosecution to prove its case to a jury. You don't have to say a thing.

It's the same idea in science and philosophy. You say something called "materialism" makes all these predictions? Where's you evidence?

Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.

Is he serious?

A little thought experiment: first, imagine our universe - or as much of it as you can picture. Next, subtract out all the matter and energy - including intelligent beings like us - so that means all the matter and energy. Now, show us where in that black nothingness we find "language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems... etc" all floating about. And in what form?

It is also very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe.

We saw earlier just how right the Bible was about the Big Bang. But for Craig and other believers the Bible has to be right because that is where their faith is grounded. It's right because it must be right. That's not very convincing.

Back to materialism

Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found by science to be as follows:

material particles reduces to energy

No, matter and energy are better understood as the same thing in different states.

energy reduces to information

Really? If I plug a bew battery into my flashlight it doesn't start flashing out Maxwell's Equations. If I throw a book on to a fire I don't get a new book I get ashes. I don't see energy reducing to information at all.

information reduces to consciousness

I think not. My computer is filled with information but its not conscious - annoying at times - but not conscious. And I suspect AI has got quite a ways to go yet before it can refuse to open the pod-bay doors.

It is simply ludicrous for Ian to try to hold that materialism did not hold the predictions I listed. For instance

1. Carl Sagan said, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

Okay, for the sake of argument, Sagan was stating his belief in a form of materialism. That doesn't show that materialism makes the specific predictions you say it does.

2. Eddington found a beginning of the universe 'repugnant' and tried to find a 'loophole'.

So Eddington didn't like it? How is that evidence that materialism predicts an eternal universe?

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would 'draw together' under its own gravity, in his self admitted 'greatest blunder', added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe had a beginning. And Einstein was corrected, by of all people, a Belgian Priest:

The reasons why Einstein added the cosmological constant are well-known and it was not because he was afraid of the religious implications of the Big Bang.

Lemaitre was a brilliant astronomer and physicist as well as a priest. No doubt he believed in a creation event as part of is faith but what convinced the scientific community was good, solid mathematics and astronomical observations of the matter-and-energy universe in action.

Still no evidence of how "materialism" entails an eternal universe or any of the other so-called predictions.

Elizabeth, because there are lineage-specific differences and evolution is an assumed fact. Put together, the most likely hypothesis is it evolved 11 times. For evolutionists homology is evidence for evolution, independently derived characters are evidence for evolution, and anything else is evidence. Evolutionists have no metric or standard to deny the ability of evolution to do anything.

ToE can't fit every possible observation, and there are plenty of things that if found would have falsified ToE right out of the gate. It's just that every piece of empirical evidence found to date does fit, which means the theory is an excellent and accurate description of reality.

I guess you need to pray harder Tedford to get your impotent God to smite the evil evos.

Thorton: How do you know that is what God likes? Maybe God actually hates variety with a passion but is too impotent to do anything about it. Prove my idea wrong.

Jeff: First of all, why not use analogy? That's an inductive thing to do, isn't it? And WE like variety. Second, it doesn't matter whether the designer is like what we posit of it. What matters is whether a teleological type of causal explanation can be conceived of. And it can be--just like people do in court all the time.

Now, does that mean we can test it by applying the normal inductive hypothesis rejection criteria(i.e., by parsimony/breadth of explanation) to competing hypotheses? No, it doesn't. But do you know why? Because there is no competing hypothesis. There are no conditions that one can posit for some time in the precambrian that are known to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the subsequent existence of the later precambrian and phanerozoic fauna and flora.

Hence, both views are unfalsifiable in terms of the inductive criteria for hypothesis rejection (parsimony/breadth of explanation), because there's only one view (ID) that is even known to be a mere LOGICAL possibility. Parsimony isn't even relevant yet. It takes 2 or more competing hypotheses for that. And we don't have even 2.

Moreover, even ID'ists want to believe there are naturalistic explanations for certain phenotypic and functional diversity that even they can't explain naturalistically. No sane inductively thinking person wants to suppose that everything that can't be exhaustively explained naturalistically must be explained by final causes. But when such data or phenomena are naturally inducive of teleological interpretations, as Dawkins and others have admitted, there's no foul in inferring thus, since there is no known alternative hypothesis that predicts the relevant data/events anyway.

In short, both camps are positing what they can't yet demonstrate to be logically possible. It's just that ID'ists can, if they allow for much more ubiquitious SA, posit way less speculatively than their opponents. How that is supposed to be a bad thing, inductively, is inconceivable. The greater the needless speculation, the less rational a person is being.

Regardless, both sides want to see what we can learn empirically (with reasonable analogical extrapolation) as to the kinds and degrees of naturally-caused phenotypic/functional diversity. Only idiots think they already know empirically and analogically what are all those kinds and degrees of possible diversity.

Thorton: How do you know that is what God likes? Maybe God actually hates variety with a passion but is too impotent to do anything about it. Prove my idea wrong.

Jeff: First of all, why not use analogy? That's an inductive thing to do, isn't it? And WE like variety.

So I guess we can infer God likes seeing people die from horrible infectious diseases like malaria and HIV because he created so many of them, right?

There are no conditions that one can posit for some time in the precambrian that are known to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the subsequent existence of the later precambrian and phanerozoic fauna and flora.

Sorry, that's demonstrably false. There is extensive literature on evidence for Precambrian life, and the conditions that would allow such life to evolve are quite easy to posit. Your personal inability to conceive of such a thing doesn't make the idea impossible.

Hence, both views are unfalsifiable in terms of the inductive criteria for hypothesis rejection (parsimony/breadth of explanation), because there's only one view (ID) that is even known to be a mere LOGICAL possibility. Parsimony isn't even relevant yet. It takes 2 or more competing hypotheses for that. And we don't have even 2.

The evolutionary sciences have a testable hypothesis that already has a huge amount of supporting evidence. Sorry your ID camp is so barren.

In short, both camps are positing what they can't yet demonstrate to be logically possible.

Another falsehood. The processes of evolution have been empirically demonstrated. They are factual, they exist, they have been demonstrated to work as advertised.

Only idiots think they already know empirically and analogically what are all those kinds and degrees of possible diversity.

Only idiots claim something is impossible because they can't conceive of it happening.

"The processes of evolution have been empirically demonstrated. They are factual, they exist, they have been demonstrated to work as advertised."

This claim is just plain false!

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:

Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00

Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

In fact there is a null hypothesis:

The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

Thorton: So I guess we can infer God likes seeing people die from horrible infectious diseases like malaria and HIV because he created so many of them, right?

Jeff: You could make a blind faith leap to such a conclusion. But you couldn't infer it by any rational process.

Thorton: Sorry, that's demonstrably false. There is extensive literature on ... the conditions that would allow such life to evolve are quite easy to posit. Your personal inability to conceive of such a thing doesn't make the idea impossible.

Jeff: Sorry. You're dead wrong. And idiotic to think thus.

Thorton: The processes of evolution have been empirically demonstrated.

Jeff: Wrong again. We're still learning processes.

Thorton: They are factual, they exist, they have been demonstrated to work as advertised.

Jeff: If by "as advertised" you mean UCA or it's like, you're wrong again. No one has done any such demonstration.

Thorton: Only idiots claim something is impossible because they can't conceive of it happening.

Jeff: Neither CH nor I have claimed that. But only an idiot thinks that because something is not known to be impossible that it is thereby known to be possible.

Jeff: You could make a blind faith leap to such a conclusion. But you couldn't infer it by any rational process.

Says the guy who thinks it's rational to claim "I like vanilla ice cream, so GOD must like vanilla ice cream too!"

Thorton: Sorry, that's demonstrably false. There is extensive literature on ... the conditions that would allow such life to evolve are quite easy to posit. Your personal inability to conceive of such a thing doesn't make the idea impossible.

Jeff: Sorry. You're dead wrong. And idiotic to think thus.

Thank you for dishonestly quote-mining what I wrote.

Here's conditions that would allow for evolution. Start in the early Precambrian with a population of imperfect self-replicators. Put them in an environment with limited resources for survival. When the population replicates, some individuals will have features that give them a differential reproductive advantage over their neighbors. These individuals will replicate more often and the genetic advantage they possess will spread through and become fixed in the population. Repeat the cycle millions of times, and the beneficial changes will accumulate and lead to more complex features in the population.

There Jeff, I just posited what you said was impossible to posit. Nice face plant there buddy.

Thorton: The processes of evolution have been empirically demonstrated.

Jeff: Wrong again. We're still learning processes.

The processes of evolution are demonstrated every time a breeder uses artificial selection to produce certain desired qualities in a breed. The processes are demonstrated every time we use a genetic algorithm to produce a new design. The fact that we're still learning new details of the processes doesn't negate the fact the processes are known to exist.

I've never understood why Creationists think that by just covering their eyes and going "NUH UH!" all the evidence mysteriously goes away.

Thorton: They are factual, they exist, they have been demonstrated to work as advertised.

Jeff: If by "as advertised" you mean UCA or it's like, you're wrong again. No one has done any such demonstration.

No, I mean the processes are empirically observed to create new features and new functions. You really don't understand evolutionary theory even a little bit, do you?

Thorton: Only idiots claim something is impossible because they can't conceive of it happening.

Jeff: Neither CH nor I have claimed that.

Actually yes, you did.

But only an idiot thinks that because something is not known to be impossible that it is thereby known to be possible.

Only an idiot claims something is impossible when the other side is sitting there with 150+ years' worth of positive scientific evidence that indicates it did happen.

"Only an idiot claims something is impossible when the other side is sitting there with 150+ years' worth of positive scientific evidence that indicates it did happen."

And yet Thorton's claim is found to be blatantly false once again:

Scant search for the MakerExcerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species."Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control"http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-evolutionary-tree-continues-to-fall-falsified-predictions-backpedaling-hgts-and-serendipity-squared/#comment-392638

Thorton: Says the guy who thinks it's rational to claim "I like vanilla ice cream, so GOD must like vanilla ice cream too!"

Jeff: Analogy doesn't prove a thing to be true. But it is better than bald pontification. But I know no one who thinks God is material. So why would God have sense organs? Why do people not believe God has a tongue? Because it explains nothing to posit it.

Thorton: Here's conditions that would allow for evolution. Start in the early Precambrian with a population of imperfect self-replicators. Put them in an environment with limited resources for survival. When the population replicates, some individuals will have features that give them a differential reproductive advantage over their neighbors. These individuals will replicate more often and the genetic advantage they possess will spread through and become fixed in the population. Repeat the cycle millions of times, and the beneficial changes will accumulate and lead to more complex features in the population.

Jeff: I'm not talking about what is possible in terms of the rules you create for your hypothetical world. I'm talking about positing conditions that involve all the other physical, chemical and biological laws we assume existed at the time. THEN DEDUCE from those conditions a subsequently-existing trilobite at the relevant time. CAN'T BE DONE!

Thorton: The processes of evolution are demonstrated every time a breeder uses artificial selection to produce certain desired qualities in a breed.

Jeff: Wrong. The effects of those processes are demonstrated. We're still learning about the processes themselves.

Thorton: The processes are demonstrated every time we use a genetic algorithm to produce a new design.

Jeff: They're over-simplistic since we don't know all the processes going on and how mutations vary the effects of them.

Thorton: I've never understood why Creationists think that by just covering their eyes and going "NUH UH!" all the evidence mysteriously goes away.

Jeff: THere is no evidence for the grand hypothesis. Evolution occurs. We see it. That doesn't imply there are as few common ancestors as you supposed.

Thorton: No, I mean the processes are empirically observed to create new features and new functions.

Jeff: That's irrelevant. Because what we know doesn't imply that all the fauna and flora could have evolved from the few common ancestors you posit. For something to be evidence, it has to corroborate the hypothesis by fulfilling a deduction FROM the hypotheis. Nothing we know about biology follows deductively from the fact that one or more single-celled organisms existed in the precambrian. Thus, there is NO evidence for that kind of hypothesis. What you call hypothetical predictions are not actually predictions/deductions from the precambrian existence of single-celled organisms at all. You're just confused about what a bona-fide prediction is.

Thorton: Actually yes, you did.

Jeff: Actually no, I didn't.

Thorton: Only an idiot claims something is impossible when the other side is sitting there with 150+ years' worth of positive scientific evidence that indicates it did happen.

Jeff: Only an idiot doesn't understand, in your shoes, what corroboration is.

Then how would God like variety if he couldn't sense it? You freshman philosophy major types crack me up.

I'm talking about positing conditions that involve all the other physical, chemical and biological laws we assume existed at the time. THEN DEDUCE from those conditions a subsequently-existing trilobite at the relevant time. CAN'T BE DONE!

Except I just did it. Not to the ridiculous level of detail you demand, but enough. You're not too bright I see.

Because what we know doesn't imply that all the fauna and flora could have evolved from the few common ancestors you posit.

Yes it does, to the satisfaction of 99.9% of professionals who actually study and work in the fields. The ignorance based opinions of freshman philosophy majors don't seem to carry much weight for some reason.

Thorton: Only an idiot claims something is impossible when the other side is sitting there with 150+ years' worth of positive scientific evidence that indicates it did happen.

Jeff: Only an idiot doesn't understand, in your shoes, what corroboration is.

Except the 150+ years of positive evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines does cross-corrolate and corroborate the current ToE quite nicely. What does ID's evidence corroborate? Oh, that's right. You IDCs don't have any positive evidence.

Thorton: Then how would God like variety if he couldn't sense it? You freshman philosophy major types crack me up.

Jeff: By sense, I mean taste, touch, sound, sight, smell. There are way more sensibilities than those.

Thorton: Except I just did it.

Jeff: Except that you didn't. What you call a ridiculous level of detail is the mind-boggling detail that is involved in what makes an organism an organism.

Thorton: Yes it does, to the satisfaction of 99.9% of professionals who actually study and work in the fields.

Jeff: Satisfaction isn't knowledge of the relevant details that would constitute a bona-fide EXPLANATION.

Thorton: Except the 150+ years of positive evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines does cross-corrolate and corroborate the current ToE quite nicely.

Jeff: What deductively follows from the existence of single-celled organisms that has any knowable thing to do with the macro fauna and flora of the phanerozoic. Let me help you--NADDA! That's what a corroboration requires.

Thorton: What does ID's evidence corroborate? Oh, that's right. You IDCs don't have any positive evidence.

Jeff: ID doesn't require evidence since there are no competing hypotheses that are explanatory. But the analogy that specified complexity of sequences that condition conspicuous teleological-appearing functions are only known to occur by intelligent causalitys is at LEAST an analogy. You don't even have that.

Thorton: Yes it does, to the satisfaction of 99.9% of professionals who actually study and work in the fields.

Jeff: Satisfaction isn't knowledge of the relevant details that would constitute a bona-fide EXPLANATION.

Again, yes it is of 99.9% of professionals who actually study and work in the fields.

But it makes you feel better to stand and scream "I can disprove 150+ years' worth of empirical positive evidence just by using my MIGHTY POWERS OF PURE LOGIC!!", knock yourself out. Don't mind all the people pointing and laughing.

Thorton: What does ID's evidence corroborate? Oh, that's right. You IDCs don't have any positive evidence.

Jeff: ID doesn't require evidence since there are no competing hypotheses that are explanatory.

That's right Jeff. ID has no evidence, and if you close your eyes and wish loudly enough "THERE IS NO ToE!!" evolution will magically go away.

Let me known when you get past your freshman philosophy class fantasies and want to discuss the actual science, OK?

Thorton: Again, yes it is of 99.9% of professionals who actually study and work in the fields.

Jeff: Produce their deductions from the existence of single-celled organisms in the precambrian with some set of terrestrial conditions in terms of event regularities in operation today. Oh, that's right, they can't do that. They're just satisfied. They know nothing relevant to the question at hand.

Thorton: Again, yes it is (to) 99.9% of professionals who actually study and work in the fields.

Jeff: Produce their deductions from the existence of single-celled organisms in the precambrian with some set of terrestrial conditions in terms of event regularities in operation today. Oh, that's right, they can't do that. They're just satisfied. They know nothing relevant to the question at hand.

You tell 'em Jeff! The millions of professional scientists who have been working and researching the issues for over 150 years know nothing because some scientifically ignorant philosophy major decrees it so.

Thorton, the literature itself is full of admissions that plenty is unexplained. The fact that people believe in evolution is not the same thing as those people knowing there is an evolutionary explanation of all the fauna and flora of the earth in terms of common ancestry from single-celled organisms. Belief is one thing. Having an actual explanation for data is another.

Thorton, the literature itself is full of admissions that plenty is unexplained. The fact that people believe in evolution is not the same thing as those people knowing there is an evolutionary explanation of all the fauna and flora of the earth in terms of common ancestry from single-celled organisms. Belief is one thing. Having an actual explanation for data is another.

Science has a perfectly good explanation for the observed patterns of life - evolution - that's extremely well supported by the data. Just because we don't know every last detail doesn't mean the large amounts we *do* know are wrong, or that the explanatory power of our current knowledge base is nonexistent.

Why do clueless philosophy majors think if we don't know everything then we can't know anything?

Data supports an explanation if the data is a prediction of the hypothesis--which in this case is the hypothesis that single-celled organisms in the precambrian plus certain contemporaneous terrestrial conditions plus the chemical and physical laws you suppose have been in operation then and since constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for deducing the data in question. No one knows any such thing. It has been admitted by the brightest and best that phenotypes can't be predicted. That's just another way of saying that nothing relevant to the supposed explanation is known after all.

And I'm not a philosophy major. And I know no one who thinks that "if we don't know everything then we can't know anything." But we can't deduce hardly any of the myriads of phenotypes in question from the supposed initial conditions. In short, you're not even wrong yet. You're not that close, theoretically speaking.

It has been admitted by the brightest and best that phenotypes can't be predicted.

But we can't deduce hardly any of the myriads of phenotypes in question from the supposed initial conditions.

That exact phenotypes can be determined millions of years beforehand has never been a prediction of ToE. In fact, such a thing would be impossible to do without knowing in advance every last bit of data on the ever changing external selection pressures.

Haven't you demonstrated your ignorance enough for one thread? Please please please learn at least the fundamentals of the theory before you hurt yourself while attacking another stupid Creationist strawman.

Sloppy work as usual. The big picture -- ask any botanist who has worked in this field -- is that phylogenetics has brought immense clarity and much more treelike structure to plant classification than existed before. Go back to the 1980s, and people were still representing plant classification as bubbles of Linnaean taxa with lines indicating affinity or even possible hybridization between plant families etc. That's all gone by the wayside with DNA sequencing.

Thorton: That exact phenotypes can be determined millions of years beforehand has never been a prediction of ToE.

Jeff: Right. That's why the hypothesis that common ancestry goes down to single-celled organisms predicts nothing relevant to the argument at hand. And that's why it doesn't matter WHAT the theory IS. Because it ISN'T a causal theory that predicts the relevant effects/events.

Thorton: That exact phenotypes can be determined millions of years beforehand has never been a prediction of ToE.

Jeff: Right. That's why the hypothesis that common ancestry goes down to single-celled organisms predicts nothing relevant to the argument at hand. And that's why it doesn't matter WHAT the theory IS. Because it ISN'T a causal theory that predicts the relevant effects/events.

Sorry Jeff but you're still clueless.

Every week the Powerball Lottery picks a new winning number. Just because you can't predict in advance what the exact winning numbers will be doesn't mean you can't know that *some* numbers will be selected.

Science doesn't have to predict ahead of time the exact morphological forms that will develop to know that the process of evolution still works.

Apparently making yourself look like a fool on the internet is a hobby of yours. Been at it long?

Thorton: Every week the Powerball Lottery picks a new winning number. Just because you can't predict in advance what the exact winning numbers will be doesn't mean you can't know that *some* numbers will be selected.

Jeff: Right, because we know that such events are possible--either because we've observed them or because we already know we have the ability to do them INTENTIONALLY. But natural causality is different. If you don't have a theory in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for subsequent events, then you just don't know those subsequent events will occur by any causal reasoning whatsoever.

Moreover, you have no reason to even believe those events were probable. Because probability has two senses that are relevant here. One is the frequency sense. But we've never observed such a genealogical sequence of events EVEN ONCE! The second is the number of conceivable possibilities. By your view, that number is enormous. Thus, any particular history (which is what actually happened, after all) is improbable even by that view.

Your hypothesis is not an explanatory one. It's just a blind leap belief. Have fun with it, dude. By all means, keep yourself calm by it if you must. There's no law against it.

Thorton: Just like science knows that evolutionary processes are capable of the changes observed in the Cambrian fossil because we've observed the processes in action.

Jeff: No, they don't know. There's two ways they could know it. First, they could observer it. They haven't. Please tell me you're not so stupid as to not even realize this much. Second, they could deduce it from known processes, including mutational effects. They can't. Not only do they not yet know all that is involved in making a phenotype what it is, they consequently don't know what effect mutations would have on such sequence-based processes. Nor do they know what a probable time period for the posited changes would be even IF those changes are possible, genealogically.

They know nothing relevant to the plausibility of their hypothesis. It's a blind-faith leap based on a metaphysic that doesn't even provide the necessary and sufficient conditions of an epistemology involving warranted belief about anything.

Every thing they say follows from their hypothesis does not follow at all. If phenotypes can't be predicted, nothing relevant to the plausiblity of the hypothesis is deducible from the initial conditions posited. For even if the process if possible, it is still only probable if it can occur probabilistically in the posited time-frame (since there already is another logical possibility--intelligently directed causality). But that probability is not known.

Thorton: Just like science knows that evolutionary processes are capable of the changes observed in the Cambrian fossils because we've observed the processes in action.

Jeff: No, they don't know. There's two ways they could know it. First, they could observer it

Stay clueless Jeff. Evolutionary processes have been empirically observed for the last 150 years. You can read about them in any basic biology or genetic textbook, or on the web. There's really no excuse for willful ignorance like yours.

Not only do they not yet know all that is involved in making a phenotype what it is, they consequently don't know what effect mutations would have on such sequence-based processes. Nor do they know what a probable time period for the posited changes would be even IF those changes are possible, genealogically.

For the exceptionally slow learners like Jeff, it doesn't matter what the probabilities were because we have more than enough empirical evidence to show conclusively that the events did happen.

What part of that don't you understand?

If phenotypes can't be predicted, nothing relevant to the plausiblity of the hypothesis is deducible from the initial conditions posited.

Still with the same stupid claim: "if we can't predict the winning lottery numbers in advance, then it's impossible for *any* numbers to come up!"

Also, evolutionary theory isn't based just on knowing the initial conditions. It's based on knowing the initial conditions AND the processes involved AND having detailed evidence from the steps along the way.

For even if the process if possible, it is still only probable if it can occur probabilistically in the posited time-frame (since there already is another logical possibility--intelligently directed causality). But that probability is not known

Damn you're a dense one. We don't need to know the probability if we already know the event happened. No one can give you an accurate probability that the St. Louis Cardinals would win the World Series last year but we still know they won it. For an event that's already occurred, the probability is 1.0

Really Jeff, stick to your philosophy classes and leave the science to those who understand it. Watching you flounder so badly is getting painful.

Thorton: Damn you're a dense one. We don't need to know the probability if we already know the event happened. No one can give you an accurate probability that the St. Louis Cardinals would win the World Series last year but we still know they won it. For an event that's already occurred, the probability is 1.0

Jeff: Your stupidity is literally awe-inspiring. We know the Cardinals won if we observed it. You never observed the fauna and flora of the earth descend genealogically from single-celled organisms in the precambrian. Worse, you also can't predict phenotypes, which is how you would know it happened theoretically. You're truly moronic.

I'll bet you personally didn't observe it. I'll bet you got your evidence second-hand from TV/radio, or the web, or newspapers accounts. Since you're relying on second-hand evidence, you have to also think it never happened, or be a big fat hypocrite.

You never observed the fauna and flora of the earth descend genealogically from single-celled organisms in the precambrian.

Psst...hey dummy...science doesn't have to observe events in real time to know they happened. It's sufficient to examine the evidence the events left behind. We have tons of corroborating evidence, both fossil and genetic, from which we can reconstruct the history.

Worse, you also can't predict phenotypes, which is how you would know it happened theoretically.

Psst..hey dummy part 2: You can't show a successful prediction for the winning runs and hits total for the St. Louis individual World Series games, so according to you the 2011 Series theoretically could not have happened.

The theory of evolution doesn't need to predict specific phenotypes to be correct anymore than the Powerball lottery needs to predict every winning number in advance, or a baseball score need to be predicted in advance to know who won.

I must say you're one of the dumber Creationists to come by in some time, approaching Tedford levels of willful ignorance.

Thorton: I'll bet you personally didn't observe it. I'll bet you got your evidence second-hand from TV/radio, or the web, or newspapers accounts. Since you're relying on second-hand evidence, you have to also think it never happened, or be a big fat hypocrite.

Jeff: Actually, I couldn't care less either way. So I don't worry about whether it's true. The relevant point is that when it comes to testimony, we have our reasons for questioning it. We have our reasons for INITIALLY giving people the benefit of doubt. We have our reasons for doubting a person did an unethical action when we can't even imagine a MOTIVE for it unless that doubt is trumped by lots of seemingly evidentiary testimony--i.e., testimony that also seems to be unmotivated by malice.

These are the kinds of considerations that are evidential when it comes to testimony. We have none of that for your view.

Thorton: Psst...hey dummy...science doesn't have to observe events in real time to know they happened. It's sufficient to examine the evidence the events left behind. We have tons of corroborating evidence, both fossil and genetic, from which we can reconstruct the history.

Jeff: Wrong, moron. There's no evidence if you have no theory that predicts those phenotypes from antecedent conditions. And there is no such theory by your own admission.

Jeff: Wrong. What is empirical is the raw data. The data, to be evidence for an hypothesis, must be known to hold a certain kind of relation to the hypothesis. It doesn't knowably hold that kind of relationship to your hypothesis. Remember? You can't predict phenotypes? So there's no prediction that can be used to render the hypothesis falsifiable. It's not science. It's just an a-plausible belief that you have blindly leapt unto.

Thorton: Psst..hey dummy part 2: You can't show a successful prediction for the winning runs and hits total for the St. Louis individual World Series games, so according to you the 2011 Series theoretically could not have happened.

Jeff: Moron, read above where I remind you of the obvious evidentiary role testimony plays in our inductive inference-making. We have no testimony for UCA, etc. No one who believes that hypothesis witnessed it. And there's no causal theory that renders the data evidence for the hypothesis. There's a reason why philosophers have given up on the demarcation criteria. It's because they insist upon regarding UCA, etc as scientific hypotheses even though they don't deductively imply any falsifiable predictions that could corroborate the hypothesis.

Thorton: The theory of evolution doesn't need to predict specific phenotypes to be correct anymore than the Powerball lottery needs to predict every winning number in advance, or a baseball score need to be predicted in advance to know who won.

Jeff: Since1) the "theory" doesn't have testimony in its favor and2) there is a bona-fide (intelligently-directed causality) causal hypothesis already on the table, it does indeed need to be able to predict subsequent events from the initial, hypothetical conditions to be considered a rational as opposed to blindly-leapt-unto belief. You are truly clueless.

And another thing, Thorton: The ID hypothesis predicted that junk DNA would have function. And best we can tell, it does. So that's a least one prediction that was corroborated for ID compared to ZERO predictions for UCA and similarly anti-SA hypotheses. One to nothing is still a win.

Since you're really slow, let me explain. There is no non-arbitrary causal accounting for the similarity of long DNA sequences other than intelligent design or natural inheritance. But the anti-ID inheritance hypothesis already has to posit similarity of long DNA sequences that aren't predicted by any intial conditions in the precambrian. So at best case, junk DNA was an argument AGAINST design. It was never an argument FOR universal common descent or similarly anti-SA hypotheses.

You see, once you deny that natural human modes of inference are designed to guide us unto true belief for the purpose of satisfaction, there is no OTHER reason to believe that any belief about an external world, actual memories, etc is true. For then, even plausibility criteria must be accepted by a blind leap of faith. This leaves rational analysis with an infinite set of merely logical possibilities but no KNOWABLE plausibility criteria to adjudicate between them. Thus, per that epistemological approach, it's blind-leap-faith all the way down.

Thorton: Last time I checked science is still doing just find as is; making new discoveries, solving mysteries about the past, increasing our knowledge of the natural world all while using only the evolution paradigm.

Jeff: You're utterly confused, moron. All people believe in evolution--i.e., descent with variation. In that sense, we all use the paradigm of evolution for certain inferences in biology. But no one has solved a mystery of the past because of a deduction from the assumption that common ancestry goes all the way down to single-celled organisms in the precambrian. There is no such deduction.

And even so, those who blindly leap to a belief in such common ancestry have been wrong over and over in their inferences. The literature is full of admissions of shock and surprise. I wonder why--NOT! You think it might be because no relevant predictions follow from the existence of single-celled organisms in the precambrian? You're one bona-fide idiot.

Chicken out? Of what? There are logic books by the score already that explain how deductive and inductive reasoning works. Why rehash what logical people have known for centuries? You're an idiot.

But you're the clown claiming he has disproven 150+ years of science just by using your freshman philosophy class notes. You're also the clown with zero evidence to back up his ridiculous claims, and who's running from the ID questions.

Dude, neither CH nor I have claimed we have disproved UCA. There's just no evidence for it. And you haven't disproved the hypothesis that intelligently-directed causality was involved as a necessary condition of phenotypes, either. But at least the latter has had at least ONE actual prediction corroborated.

So Jeff, whose theory of life's history and development is taught in colleges and universities all over the world, and used effectively by millions of researchers in hundreds of different scientific disciplines?

Whose fantasy is so lame he can't even support it on a backwater Creationist blog, let alone any proper scientific venue?

So Thorton, why is it that you don't know how to explain how hypothesizing that the common ancestors of all phanerozoic organisms were single-celled organisms in the precambrian was effective in explaining or discovering anything? How is it that you are still that ignorant after 150 years of successful discoveries that were supposedly only possible because of that hypothesis? You can't even provide one example. Because there are no examples. We know nothing that is only knowable because of that hypothesis. Everything we actually know is consistent with SA from more ancestors than single-celled organisms. And only complete morons think otherwise. If I'm wrong, give me just ONE example. Good luck!!!

Thorton, are you so mind-boggling ignorant you can't come up with even one example? If I were you, I wouldn't embarrass your fellow idiots by parading the fact that you're a know-nothing for the same reason they are.

Hmmm, 150 years worth of discoveries that could not have been made unless the discoverers were motivated by the blind-leap-belief that the common ancestors of all else were single-celled organisms in the precambrian, and you don't know even ONE of those discoveries. You are truly one bona-fide ignoramous.

Just one example, Thornton. Surely you know SOMETHING to back up your pathetic bluff.

Er Jeff, you're the one pushing the stupid strawman argument that evolutionary theory HAS TO predict specific phenotypes or else everything science knows about the evolution of multicellular life is false.

I'm just amusing myself by toying with the pitifully ignorant Creationist philosopher.

No, Thorton. As usual, you're just confused. We know things about evolution. But we don't know anything relevant to the plausibility of the hypothesis that single-celled organisms in the precambrian were the ancestors of all other terrestrial species. If you think CH is arguing against evolution per se, you have no reading comprehension at all. Descent with variation is evolution. That happens every time a human is born.

"Abstract: Deposits in China dating to about 600 million years ago contain carbon compressions of algae and other organisms. The fossils provide a new window into the early evolution of complex multicellular life."

There were over 17,000 papers and article on the evolution of multicellular life published since 2008 alone, but to the Jeff the Creationist "we don't know anything relevant".

Sometimes all you can do is shake your head at the willful ignorance.

If you think CH is arguing against evolution per se, you have no reading comprehension at all.

OK, I call Poe. If you think CH hasn't spent virtually every post here in the last five years railing against evolution, then you're doing more drugs than batspit77 ever did.

First of all, fossils per se don't tell us anything about how species originate. It takes other knowledge about variational mechanisms for that. Those mechanisms are either well-enough understood to deduce future phenotypes or they aren't. Second, even if single-celled organisms can evolve into certain mutli-cellular species, it doesn't follow at all that they can evolve into all the other multi-cellular species that have inhabited this planet. Please tell me you understand this much.

And when CH is railing against ridiculous claims of knowledge of macroevolution, he isn't denying THAT descent with variation occurs. The latter is observable for crying out loud.

First of all, fossils per se don't tell us anything about how species originate. It takes other knowledge about variational mechanisms for that.

Oh, you mean like the 60+ years of knowledge we have about genetics and the multiple mechanisms of genetic variation.

Those mechanisms are either well-enough understood to deduce future phenotypes or they aren't.

For the 4657th time: Future phenotypes are not due JUST to the genetic variations. It's the variations FILTERED BY SELECTION IN THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. If you can't know exactly every last selection pressure in the environment (and you can't), then you can't predict which specific phenotypes will arise.

How many times do you need that explained to you before it sinks in?

Second, even if single-celled organisms can evolve into certain mutli-cellular species, it doesn't follow at all that they can evolve into all the other multi-cellular species that have inhabited this planet.

Why not? What would stop the evolutionary processes? Please be specific.

And when CH is railing against ridiculous claims of knowledge of macroevolution, he isn't denying THAT descent with variation occurs. The latter is observable for crying out loud.

You just told me it's possible for single celled animal to evolve into multicellular ones. Why isn't that an example of macroevolution?

Thorton: Future phenotypes are not due JUST to the genetic variations. It's the variations FILTERED BY SELECTION IN THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. If you can't know exactly every last selection pressure in the environment (and you can't), then you can't predict which specific phenotypes will arise.

Jeff: I agree. You can't predict phenotypes. So what's the next best thing? Finding it probable that the phenotypes that have existed, at the times they are posited to have originated, was a probable consequence of some set of precambrian initial conditions, given the event regularities in operation over the relevant time period. So far from this being known to be probable, Koonin has actually posited the need of a multiverse MERELY to render abiogenesis ALONE realistically probable. And you have to posit natural abiogenesis anyway since you reject intelligently-directed causality for the relevant time period on metaphysical grounds.

Thorton: Why not? What would stop the evolutionary processes? Please be specific.

Jeff: Life could go extinct in the precambrian or reach an evolutionary dead-end (far short of the phenotype diversity that exists) in the posited time period. We can't prove the initial conditions preclude the possibility of either of these scenarios. Indeed, there's a virtually infinite set of permutation and combinations of temporally-ordered phenotype origin events within the relevant time-frame that we can't preclude as possible scenarios using your approach. Thus, you're still stuck with a probability problem using your approach because you don't know enough to constrain the possibilities down to a realistic number--precisely BECAUSE you can't predict phenotypes yet.

Worse, ruling out design for the origin of humans rules out the possibility that humans are designed to know. If that's the case, it is not knowable that conscious experience isn't predominantly illusory in the first place. There's nothing about a-teleological evolution that renders epiphenominalism (and, therefore, illusory experience) improbable.

Thorton: "Future phenotypes are not due JUST to the genetic variations. It's the variations FILTERED BY SELECTION IN THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. If you can't know exactly every last selection pressure in the environment (and you can't), then you can't predict which specific phenotypes will arise."

Jeff: I agree. You can't predict phenotypes.

So the 15 watt bulb in your head finally came on. Good. Maybe now you'll stop blithering about how ToE HAS to predict phenotypes to be true.

Thorton: Why not? What would stop the evolutionary processes? Please be specific.

Jeff: Life could go extinct in the precambrian or reach an evolutionary dead-end (far short of the phenotype diversity that exists) in the posited time period.

That wasn't the question asked. The question was since you agree evolutionary mechanisms can produce multi-cellular creatures from single celled ones, what would prohibit the same processes from having the multi-cellular ones evolve further into different multi-cellular ones.

You avoidance of the question is noted.

You also avoided the question about why the single-cell to multi-cell transition isn't macroevolution.

You really haven't thought this through at all, and don't understand what you're arguing even a little.

Worse, ruling out design for the origin of humans rules out the possibility that humans are designed to know.

Science hasn't ruled out design for the origin of humans, or any other life forms. Science just says as of today there's no positive evidence for any such design, and lots of positive evidence that an external designer isn't necessary.

Thorton: Maybe now you'll stop blithering about how ToE HAS to predict phenotypes to be true.

Jeff: I didn't say the hypothesis has to predict phenotypes. I said it has to predict phenotypes for those phenotypes to count as evidence (in the form of corroboration) for the hypothesis. And that is indeed the case.

Thorton: ... since you agree evolutionary mechanisms can produce multi-cellular creatures from single celled ones, what would prohibit the same processes from having the multi-cellular ones evolve further into different multi-cellular ones.

Jeff: Extinction of all life before it evolved into multi-cellular forms would stop it unless you want to say abiogenesis is so inevitable it has been going on throughout the Phanerozoic.

Thorton: You avoidance of the question is noted.

Jeff: I answered your question.

Thorton: You also avoided the question about why the single-cell to multi-cell transition isn't macroevolution.

Jeff: You can call any evolution whatever you want. But you can't predict phenotypes and you can't calculate a plausible probability for any pre-cambrian thru recent evolutionary tree. Plus, we aren't even close to demostrating that naturalistic abiogenesis is possible. So there's ZERO evidence for you approach.

Thorton: Science hasn't ruled out design for the origin of humans, or any other life forms.

Jeff: You're right. It hasn't. But it would have done just that if there was lots of evidene for another hypothesis, as you claim. For then, that hypothesis would be more parsimonious. But in fact, you have no evidence for any such hypothesis. What we have is KNOWLEDGE that SOME evolution occurs.

Thorton: Science just says as of today there's no positive evidence for any such design, ...

Jeff: But there is evidence for ID and none for UCA, etc. ID has in its favor the corroboration of one predition, the analogy of sequence-based information, and the greater parsimony entailed in SA.

Thorton: ... and lots of positive evidence that an external designer isn't necessary.

Jeff: To posit that the mind is not designed to know via scientific methods is to posit that there is no such thing as evidence at all. You're really confused.

I didn't say the hypothesis has to predict phenotypes. I said it has to predict phenotypes for those phenotypes to count as evidence (in the form of corroboration) for the hypothesis. And that is indeed the case.

LOL! You can tell this Creationist lie as often as you like Jeff, but that won't make it true.

Thorton: Your avoidance of the question is noted.

Jeff: I answered your question.

No you didn't. You cowardly dodged it twice because you have no good answer. We both know it, and so do the lurkers.

You're busted, reduced to repeating the same idiotic claims out of sheer inertia.

A corroboration of an explanatory hypothesis is either an instantiation of an event or state of affairs that is deduceable from that hypothesis or a probable consequence of the initial conditions posited by the hypothesis. You have yet to demonstrate ONE corroboration of the hypothesis that the existence of single-celled organisms in the precambrian rendered all subsequent life inevitable or probable given the event regularities in operation during the relevant time period. No such corroboration has ever been demonstrated. You're just a complete idiot.

There are some who have the God-given sense to hide behind methodological naturalism rather than pretend they actually have evidence when they clearly don't. The problem with that approach is that methodological naturalism is of no avail if the naturalistic causal hypothesis in question implies no knowable falsifiable predictions or knowably probable consequences. And the hypothesis that CH and I disbelieve is just such an hypothesis.

You're just an idiot. And the fact that you can't provide ONE example of a corroboration of the hypothesis is proof that the pontificators you so obviously adore are idiots as well, at least in this respect.

And, again, this is WHY even philosophers of science have given up on demarcation criteria for science. They are such shills for consensus thought they've willingly foregone any way to even DEFINE science just to propagandize as "science" what Poppper rightly called a metaphysical research program.

Jeff: Finding it probable that the phenotypes that have existed, at the times they are posited to have originated, was a probable consequence of some set of precambrian initial conditions, given the event regularities in operation over the relevant time period.

Or what? Not sure your point. Are you saying that if the Theory of Evolution can't predict the probable trajectory of evolution, then it isn't a valid theory?

Zachriel: Or what? Not sure your point. Are you saying that if the Theory of Evolution can't predict the probable trajectory of evolution, then it isn't a valid theory?

Jeff: That would mean it's not a causal theory at all in the normal scientific sense. But it's worse than that. For since you reject intelligently-directed causality as a valid competitor, the ToE depends upon a viable theory for abiogenesis to even be considered possible, causally. And yet we have no such theory. So the ToE (starting with single-celled organisms in the precambrian, i.e.) fails in all 3 respects:

1) the predictive failure,2) the knowably probabilistic failure,3) the a-causal starting point of the first organism given the lack of a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.

It also fails on simple analogy, because analogical extrapolations don't occur--divergent branching phenotypical patterns are what the hypothesis needs to predict, not an analogical extrapolation.

In short, the hypothesis that precambrian single-celled organisms (or the like) are the ancestors of all subsequent life has zero relevant evidence in its favor. That doesn't prove it's false. But given that those initial conditions don't imply the future existence of the vast majority of the subsequent phenotypes, it's much more parsimonious to posit (until we have a truly predictive theory that predicts the relevant events at the relevant times) SA in terms of ID. This is in addition to the well-corroborated prediction that putative "junk" DNA would be shown to have function and the analogical relationship of function-causing specified-complex sequences.

That doesn't prove the SA version of ID is true, of course. But it does mean it is more plausible at this time in terms of the only inductive criteria by which we rationally evaluate hypotheses. It may be proven less parsimonious in the future. But it is not known to be so today.

Worse, to posit, metaphysically, that natural deductive and inductive modes of inference are not DESIGNED to discursively result in truth-approximation is to embrace epistemological skepticism. For, as I reminded Thorton, an evolutionary theory that can't rule out such epistemological dead-ends as epiphenominalism, etc is nothing but pure blind faith, just as NEO's supposed experience of the "world" was illusory in the relevant sense, having nothing to do with his actual physical survival or activity. This is the real epistemologically suicidal move that scientism leads to. For it renders all belief blind by eradicating the knowability of any axioms that could ground truth-approximating discursive inference. I.e., ID must be known to be true in that minimal sense to know anything else relevant to what we call scientific inquiry.

Zachriel: Or what? Not sure your point. Are you saying that if the Theory of Evolution can't predict the probable trajectory of evolution, then it isn't a valid theory?

Jeff: That would mean it's not a causal theory at all in the normal scientific sense.

Interesting, so Quantum Theory, which can't predict the trajectory of a particle, is "not a causal theory at all". And Newton's Theory, which can't predict the trajectory of loosely bound masses in the Oort Cloud, is "not a causal theory at all". And meteorology, which can't predict exactly where a raindrop will fall, is "not a causal theory at all".

Jeff: For since you reject intelligently-directed causality as a valid competitor, ...

Don't reject it. There's just no scientific evidence of an intelligent agent.

Jeff: ... the ToE depends upon a viable theory for abiogenesis to even be considered possible, causally.

No. The Theory of Evolution stands without a theory of abiogenesis, just as the Theory of Gravity stands without a theory to explain the origin of matter.

Quantum theory and meterology at least predict tendencies. And tendencies can have utilitarian value to humans. Newton's theory is a predictive theory, that works well within its limits. Thus, it is valuable if you know its limits.

Positing that precambrian single-celled organisms or the like preceded all multi-cellular organisms predicts neither tendencies nor events that can be tested against the real world. E.g., if, per our current limited knowledge, such a genealogical tree would only be expected to occur once in 900 trillion years, then that hypothesis is radically implausible on those terms alone. Thus, the only reason one would reject SA is on arbitrary metaphysical grounds.

Thorton: There's just no scientific evidence of an intelligent agent.

Jeff: There is indeed, evidence--the very evidence I provided in my last response to you. As unimpressive to you as that evidence is, it's still more evidence than there is for the claim that the phanerozoic is a probable natural biological consequence of single-celled organisms in the precambrian--i.e. zero evidence.

Thorton: The Theory of Evolution stands without a theory of abiogenesis, just as the Theory of Gravity stands without a theory to explain the origin of matter.

Jeff: It does, indeed, stand without a theory of abiogenesis IFF you allow non-natural (i.e., intelligently-directed) causality as a causal option. Unfortunately for you, once you do that, you lose hands down for the inductive reasons I've already explained. Humans know of only two kinds of causality--natural/deterministic and volitional.

The indeterminism of QT is not caused in any logical sense. It is merely indeterministic in predictive sense of the word. And such indeterminism of prediction doesn't imply that there is no ultimately deterministic cause of the effects.

Again, this doesn't mean that research won't ultimately logically render UCA or the like plausible enough for the posited time-frame to render it more parsimonious after all. But we have no such knowledge at this time. And CH isn't contesting such research. He's rightly contesting the claim that we currently have evidence for UCA or its like when we have precisely ZERO evidence for that hypothesis or its like. To date, significant SA is much, MUCH more plausible than UCA or its sister conventional hypotheses on grounds of parsimony alone.

As does evolutionary theory, but none of these theories reliably predict the action of strawmen. In particular, evolutionary theory predicts that all new species and adaptations will be descendants of existing species and adaptations.

Jeff: Positing that precambrian single-celled organisms or the like preceded all multi-cellular organisms predicts neither tendencies nor events that can be tested against the real world.

It predicts many things. For instance, it predicts intermediates between single-celled and multi-cellular organisms, such as intercellular communication in single-celled organisms.

Jeff: E.g., if, per our current limited knowledge, such a genealogical tree would only be expected to occur once in 900 trillion years, then that hypothesis is radically implausible on those terms alone.

Huh? Much less chance than that! Just the chance of your own particular combination of genes is nearly infinitesimal.

Jeff: Thus, the only reason one would reject SA is on arbitrary metaphysical grounds.

"SA" is separate ancestry? That was an open question left by Darwin in Origin of Species, so it's obviously not metaphysical but empirical. But we could start with the common descent of mammals or dinosaurs. Or do you think there was separate ancestry of "kinds" however you define the term?

Jeff: The indeterminism of QT is not caused in any logical sense. It is merely indeterministic in predictive sense of the word.

That is incorrect. Quantum phenomena are non-predictive in the most fundamental sense. We can't predict the exact trajectory of a particle, not because of our limited empirical tools, but because a precise trajectory (position and momentum) simply doesn't exist on the quantum scale.

Jeff: And such indeterminism of prediction doesn't imply that there is no ultimately deterministic cause of the effects.

Every empirical test has shown that indeterminism has no underlying causation, but is intrinsic to the nature of quantum reality.

Z: In particular, evolutionary theory predicts that all new species and adaptations will be descendants of existing species and adaptations.

J: This doesn't render any particular tree probable--either in terms of species membership or timing of origin. It's so high of a level of generalization that it's consistent with only 2 species toggling back and forth over time until their sun burns out.

Z: It predicts ... intermediates between single-celled and multi-cellular organisms, such as intercellular communication in single-celled organisms.

J: Whatever it ACTUALLY probabilistically predicts, no ID'ist has any problem with. Remember the "explanatory filter" of Dembski? People prefer natural explanations over volitional explanations where they probabilistically exist. That's how induction works. Parsimony requires that we explain events in terms of known regularities WHEN PROBABILISTICALLY POSSIBLE. But to just say there is no such thing as free, intellectually-directed causality is to say ID is not even a logical possibility at all. Of course, to make that contention is to commit intellectual suicide. For if thought is uncaused or deterministically-caused, no mind can intentionally effect what it believes anyway. Thus, all belief would be blind.

Z: Just the chance of your own particular combination of genes is nearly infinitesimal.

J: Which is precisely the point. The only kind of probability we can apply at this time, because of our causal ignorance, is logical possibility probability. We can't yet apply frequency probability theory to the events in question. Because we haven't ever observed even ONCE the posited events. But your hypothesis needs to causally predict, at least in terms of frequency theory probability, the tendency for the postited tree to originate at the posited times. But we don't know enough to calculate such a probability to know whether it is a GOOD probability.

Z: But we could start with the common descent of mammals or dinosaurs. Or do you think there was separate ancestry of "kinds" however you define the term?

J: I'm not worried about how much evolution has taken place. No doubt evolution to some extent has occurred. But we only have rational (inductive) warrant for positing that degree of descent with variation that well-tested causal theory plausibly predicts for the posited time-frame. And this is because SA is a logical possibility that serves as a parsimony preference (per inductive logic) to the extent that we have no such broader theory yet.

Z: We can't predict the exact trajectory of a particle, not because of our limited empirical tools, but because a precise trajectory (position and momentum) simply doesn't exist on the quantum scale.

J: To say there is no precise position and momentum is to say there is NO position and/or momentum. Because momentums and positions, by definition, are specific. But to say there is NO position and/or momentum is to say there is no particle with mass at that time. This is just what words mean.

But I think Tom Van Flandern has demonstrated that it is not yet possible to rule out the logical possibility that deterministic factors could be involved with entities much smaller than the shortest wave length of light that we use.

Besides, to contend that there is no causality at the level of fundamental particles which, per materialism, are the only true ontological entities there are, is to contend that absolutely NO event is caused. In that case, prediction is impossible. All seemingly successful prediction in that case is illusory. It's all mere luck in that case, unless even perception itself is illusory as well.

Z: Every empirical test has shown that indeterminism has no underlying causation, but is intrinsic to the nature of quantum reality.

J: If there is no causality at the level of fundamental particles, there is no such thing as methodological naturalism either. There goes natural science.

Let me articulate a clarification to make some of my above comments more clear.

1) We DON'T know that UCA is a logical possibility if we rule out intelligently-directed causality from all explanation. Because in that case, UCA depends on

a) the existence of a naturalistic origin of the first life, and we don't know there is such a logical possibility yet.

b) the knowability that thought corresponds to an extra-ego world "out there." And we can't know that if we don't know intuitively that at LEAST the mind is DESIGNED to approximate truth by its natural modes of deductive and inductive inference.

2) We don't know UCA in the posited time-frame is logically possible even if we assume that the first cell was designed. Because that requires that we know more than we do. What we can reasonably guess is that an impressive genealogical tree might be possible if some kind of combination like gene duplication and fortuitous mutations could go on long enough without extinction events, like suns burning out, etc. But THAT is not the hypothesis.

3) Van Flandern didn't prove that it is a logical possibility that determinism holds for physical events unaffected by voltion. But he did, IMO, prove that we can't prove that it is NOT a logical possibility that determinism holds for physical events unaffected by volition.

Thus, QT is irrelevant as an argument for or against science. It is what it is--a theory that predicts tendencies, just like meterology. There is no standard model that has been proven consistent with observations yet anyway, so QT is merely an event tendency predicting theory.

But once you concede free, intelligently-directed causality as a causal option for biological origin explanation, ID-style SA is ON the table. And it IS more parsimonious in the sense that it doesn't posit as many speculative events/states as does UCA and its sister hypotheses. In that sense, even ID'ists like Behe etal are missing the real logical reasons for positing SA.

Jeff: This doesn't render any particular tree probable--either in terms of species membership or timing of origin. It's so high of a level of generalization that it's consistent with only 2 species toggling back and forth over time until their sun burns out.

If the environment is diverse, then organisms will tend to diversify, and competition pushes organisms to diversity. Some bugs will adapt to the top of the rock, others to the bottom. This will allow the total population to make more efficient use of the available resources.

Zachriel: It predicts ... intermediates between single-celled and multi-cellular organisms, such as intercellular communication in single-celled organisms.

Jeff: Whatever it ACTUALLY probabilistically predicts, no ID'ist has any problem with.

That comment seems completely detached from the point. Intermediates are predicted because they are posited to share a common ancestor.

Jeff: The only kind of probability we can apply at this time, because of our causal ignorance, is logical possibility probability.

In other words, you were never born?

Jeff: Because we haven't ever observed even ONCE the posited events.

Are you referring to historical events? If so, we can predict that some sperm and some egg joined to form a particular person. We don't have to have observed the actual formation. We have sufficient evidence to believe that it did, indeed, occur.

Jeff: But your hypothesis needs to causally predict, at least in terms of frequency theory probability, the tendency for the postited tree to originate at the posited times.

Straw.

Jeff: I'm not worried about how much evolution has taken place.

In other words, you don't want to bother looking at actual grubby organisms while pontificating on biological evolution.

Jeff: To say there is no precise position and momentum is to say there is NO position and/or momentum.

There's a precise position or a precise momentum, but not both at the same time (trajectory).

Jeff: If there is no causality at the level of fundamental particles, there is no such thing as methodological naturalism either.

There's causality. Just not everything that you would naïvely expect to have a cause has a cause on the quantum level.

This returns to your point above. You said that if the Theory of Evolution can't predict the trajectory of a lineage, then "it's not a causal theory at all", yet Quantum Theory can't predict the trajectory of a particle, yet purports to be a theory of quantum particles. It's a strawman. Quantum Theory makes many predictions, just not that one. The Theory of Evolution makes many predictions, just not that one.

Jeff: ID-style SA is ON the table.

It's only on the table when you have something to put on the table. What is the ID-style SA Theory? What novel predictions does it make?

Z: If the environment is diverse, then organisms will tend to diversify, and competition pushes organisms to diversity.

J: Assume any adaptation can be "found" by a blind mutational search. We still have the issue of how long this will take. This is why we don't know such evolution is logically possible or probable in the posited time-frame.If environmental "pressures" always push to diversity rather than extinction, this could only be known to be true if the relevant feedback mechanisms were known to be front-loaded in the initial conditions. Why would this be in an undesigned state of affairs?

Z: That comment seems completely detached from the point. Intermediates are predicted because they are posited to share a common ancestor.

J: No, intermediates are predictions if they can be deduced to exist or probably exist at the relevant time from the initial conditions in terms of the assumed event regularities in operation.

Z:In other words, you were never born?

J: I don't use probability theory on DNA sequences to determine whether I was born.

Z: Are you referring to historical events?

J: I'm talking about posited evolutionary trajectories that have never been observed even once and are not known to be logical possibilities in the time-frame posited for them in terms of the initial conditions and which lack the analogical relationships that observed trajectories have to certain SA approaches.

Z: In other words, you don't want to bother looking at actual grubby organisms while pontificating on biological evolution.

J: Looking at organisms doesn't prove they descended genealogically from single-celled organisms in the precambrian. It takes no rocket scientist to know that UCA, etc is not yet known to be logically possible or probable in the posited time-frame. Therefore, nothing relevant to corroborating UCA, etc follows from positing single-celled organisms as the first terrestrial life.

Z: There's a precise position or a precise momentum, but not both at the same time (trajectory).

J: To say there is no precise position and momentum at a given time is to say there is NO position and/or momentum AT THAT TIME.

Z: There's causality. Just not everything that you would naïvely expect to have a cause has a cause on the quantum level.

J: You're wrong unless, by caused, you mean seemingly regular. But if events can occur uncaused, how could you possibly know that they can only do so with irregularity? To impose constraints on future events is to either think causally or irrationally.

Z: Quantum Theory can't predict the trajectory of a particle, yet purports to be a theory of quantum particles... Quantum Theory makes many predictions, just not that one.

J: To predict events specifically or probabilistically is to imply causality. Earths fauna and flora is not known to be specifically or probabilistically predicted in terms of the posited intial conditions and event regularities. Correlation does not prove causality. But causality requires correlation. What correlation are you assuming is indicative of causality?

J: ID-style SA is ON the table.

Z: It's only on the table when you have something to put on the table.

J: No, it's on the table because it's known to be a logical possibility.

Z: What is the ID-style SA Theory?

J: SA via intelligent design of the ancestors.

Z: What novel predictions does it make?

J: That what originally seemed to be junk DNA was not junk. That didn't follow from positing single-celled organisms as the first terrestrial life forms. But it did seem plausible in terms of the assumption that DNA sequences were originally intentionally sequenced for function in whatever original ancestors existed on this planet.

We use ID all the time to credit scientists, etc for the fruits of their intellectual activity, thereby denying epiphenominalism and other absurd logical possibilities that are not known to be improbable in terms of ateleological evolution.

Jeff: Assume any adaptation can be "found" by a blind mutational search.

You do realize that when we addressed your point, you simply ignored the response and introduced a different argument.

To return to our example of bugs that adapt to being on top of the rock or beneath the rock, the bugs on top of the rock may develop a hard shell as protection against the elements.

Jeff: This is why we don't know such evolution is logically possible or probable in the posited time-frame.

We can directly observe evolution, and rates have been measured in the thousands of darwins. There is more than sufficient natural variation in shell thicknesses.

Jeff: intermediates are predictions if they can be deduced to exist or probably exist at the relevant time from the initial conditions in terms of the assumed event regularities in operation.

They follow from the hypothesis. If fish and tetrapods share a common ancestor, and if evolution was incremental, then there should have once existed fishopods. A fishopod might exhibit the gills and scales of a fish, a functional wrist but with fins instead of phalanges, the flexible neck of a tetrapod, and perhaps lungs and a more robust ribcage.

Jeff: I don't use probability theory on DNA sequences to determine whether I was born.

Precisely. So you can predict the trajectory of your own line of descent. Only observe the results.

Jeff: I'm talking about posited evolutionary trajectories that have never been observed even once ...

Um, we're talking about historical events. You don't observe them, you observe the evidence they left behind.

Jeff: ... and are not known to be logical possibilities in the time-frame posited for them in terms of the initial conditions ...

Repeating an unsupported claim doesn't render it valid.

Jeff: ... and which lack the analogical relationships that observed trajectories have to certain SA approaches.

"Analogical relationships"? If your claim is to have scientific validity, then you have to state a clear hypothesis, and deduce specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.

Jeff: Looking at organisms doesn't prove they descended genealogically from single-celled organisms in the precambrian.

You wouldn't know as you won't bother with the mundane.

Jeff: It takes no rocket scientist to know that ...

Wrong specialty. Try consulting a biologist next time.

Jeff: UCA, etc is not yet known to be logically possible or probable in the posited time-frame.

That's a weird negative construction. No, it doesn't work that way; otherwise, science would never progress.

Jeff: To say there is no precise position and momentum at a given time is to say there is NO position and/or momentum AT THAT TIME.

It's actually a relationship. The product of uncertainties of position and momentum will be no less than one half of the Dirac constant.

Jeff: But if events can occur uncaused, how could you possibly know that they can only do so with irregularity?

Rather, it's your belief that a particle has both a precise position and momentum that is in error.

Jeff: To impose constraints on future events is to either think causally or irrationally.

Sorry that the universe doesn't fit into your philosophy.

Jeff: Earths fauna and flora is not known to be specifically or probabilistically predicted in terms of the posited intial conditions and event regularities.

It's called historical contingency. Sorry the world is complicated.

Jeff: No, it's on the table because it's known to be a logical possibility.

Then you must eat alone. For a claim to have scientific validity, it has to entail empirical implications. Last Thursdayism may be logically consistent, but is scientifically vacuous.

Jeff: SA via intelligent design of the ancestors.

That's way too vague. What ancestors? When or how often? Who was the designer? What was the mechanism of implementation? For what purpose? Only when you make your claim clear will it be possible to derive its empirical implications.

J: I'm consulting you. Are you gonna put up or just continually resort to pathetic, cowardly ad hominem like Thorton?

Z: That's a weird negative construction. No, it doesn't work that way; otherwise, science would never progress.

J: You're reading into my words. Neither CH nor I have advocated ceasing to research what kinds and degrees of variation are possible.

Z: Rather, it's your belief that a particle has both a precise position and momentum that is in error.

J: If by particle you mean a spatially-extended entity, then it has a position by definition. If you mean something else by particle, define it. As to whether it always has mass/momentum, I see no reason why I should believe one way or the other since we don't have a standard model that physicists are convinced has been demonstrated empirically yet.

Z: It's called historical contingency. Sorry the world is complicated.

J: I'm not sorry. Because I'm not worried sick about whether UCA is true or not.

Z: For a claim to have scientific validity, it has to entail empirical implications. Last Thursdayism may be logically consistent, but is scientifically vacuous.

J: How do you, per your epistemology, know there's such a thing as an empirical reality? Is it intuitive to you? If so, are your intuitions to be trusted? If so, is it because you said so or what?

If it's not intuitive to you, how do you prove it to yourself?

If it's neither intuitive to you nor proved by you, do you just believe it by a blind faith leap? If so, is pretty much everything you believe the result of blind faith leaps?

Z: Only when you make your claim clear will it be possible to derive its empirical implications.

J: State your hypothesis and its specific, empirical implications. I'm still not aware of what you're claiming is implied by positing that single-celled organisms were the first terrestrial organisms? Please, wrap this one up for me once and for all.

Me? I can't predict phenotypes any more than UCA'ists can. So how is this a problem for me?

And even if a future phenotype prediction could be confirmed, it would only be relevant to the subject of this blog if the prediction was an implication of hypothesizing that single-celled organisms were the first terrestrial organisms. Do you honestly think anything like that will happen in our life time?

The point of this blog is not to oppose research or to suggest that UCA for the posited time-frame can be proven false by empirical findings. It's to bring attention to the fact that the hypothesis of UCA is void of evidence. Because that hypothesis is not known to be logically possible or probable in the posited time-frame.

If all he can do is whine and insult, I wish he had taken your warning. What would be nice is if either of you could provide a definition of evidence that can be used to demonstrate that there is evidence for UCA that renders SA either false or implausible by comparison. Can you put up for that request? And if not, why, pray tell, don't you shut up? Because if you can't put up for that question, you have literally nothing to counter CH. Because CH isn't claiming UCA is provably false. He's saying UCA isn't knowably more plausible than SA approaches in terms of evidence.

Though it's not an actual implication, the continued discoveries of function for putative "junk" DNA is an expected consequence of ID-style SA, and the alternative is just a-plausible regardless of one's hypothesis about biological origins. It's certainly not a plausible expectation of the UCA hypothesis or its sister hypotheses. That's one to nothing. That may not be much, but it is better than the competition.

About the only other implications that could count towards corroboration of an hypothesis about biological origins, given our current inability to predict phenotypes to any significant degree, would NECESSARILY follow ONLY from SA approaches. Nothing that could corroborate the UCA of virtually all of earth's phenotypes follows from positing single-celled organisms as the first terrestrial life. And neither of you can give ONE example to counter me.

Jeff: Are you gonna put up or just continually resort to pathetic, cowardly ad hominem

You used a cliché. We replied with a friendly jibe. (By the way, rocket science is easy. Rocket engineering is hard.)

Jeff: Neither CH nor I have advocated ceasing to research what kinds and degrees of variation are possible.

Perhaps we misread. Let's try again.

Jeff: UCA, etc is not yet known to be logically possible or probable in the posited time-frame. Therefore, nothing relevant to corroborating UCA, etc follows from positing single-celled organisms as the first terrestrial life.

Universal common ancestry is certainly logically consistent, and probability is determined by examining the evidence. As for the second sentence, that simply doesn't make sense. One posits common ancestry in order to test its empirical implications. That's the whole point of the scientific method.

Jeff: If by particle you mean a spatially-extended entity, then it has a position by definition. If you mean something else by particle, define it.

Jeff: I'm not sorry. Because I'm not worried sick about whether UCA is true or not.

You didn't answer the point. One reason why evolutionary trajectories are difficult to predict is because of historical contingency; also, due to the chaotic nature of interactions. What the Theory of Evolution predicts limits on what trajectories are expected.

Jeff: How do you, per your epistemology, know there's such a thing as an empirical reality?

We make no claim about 'reality', only that if you say something is empirically supported that means, by definition, it is supported by observations. If you say something has scientific validity, then you have to provide the scientific support.

Jeff: State your hypothesis and its specific, empirical implications.

Let's start with something simple. Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. We have fossils. Do you think that if we examined fossil bones, that they would show wear marks consistent with walking?

Jeff: I'm still not aware of what you're claiming is implied by positing that single-celled organisms were the first terrestrial organisms?

For evidence of common descent from single-celled organisms, we have to look at all the evidence connected various organisms. And you have to be reasonably grounded in what is considered scientific support. We might examine one branch of the tree, such as mammals.

Jeff: I can't predict phenotypes any more than UCA'ists can. So how is this a problem for me?

The Theory of Evolution puts limits on what can be expected. Can you explain why the Theory of Evolution would not expect a Centaur or Griffin?

Jeff: What would be nice is if either of you could provide a definition of evidence that can be used to demonstrate that there is evidence for UCA that renders SA either false or implausible by comparison.

As your use of "SA" is very vague, there's no way to meet your request. We've asked for details, but you have not bothered to provide them.